The BBC reported that after fourteen years, five suspected terrorists including Abu Hamza al-Masri, will finally be extradited to the United States. uk-19852506. The five are accused of plotting the bombing of a U.S. embassy in East Africa in 1998. Why did it take so long to get the courts to return him to U.S. jurisdiction? What is Extradition?
Between every state in the U.S. and among hundreds of countries in the world, there exist extradition treaties. (Between the states they are called extradition statutes.) Normally, each state, each country has exclusive authority on how to operate their court system and a defendant caught-up in that system is subject only to the jurisdiction of the system. One state cannot tell another state what to do or one country cannot force another country to do something. 
Unless another state or country want jurisdiction or “possession” of the defendant. The statutes and treaties make it legally possible to transfer accused people from one system to the other. Let’s say someone is accused or murder in Minnesota but boogies to South Dakota and remains there. If the authorities in Minnesota discover the accused murderer in S.D., they can request that South Dakota hold the accused until Minnesota comes to pick him up–and South Dakota will agree to release the man to Minnesota authorities. Normally, South Dakota could ignore Minnesota’s request except for the statutes that give each state the right to come into the state in order to take an accused back to the first state.
What defenses does an accused person have? Each state and country has a minimal procedure that must be followed. In Minnesota, for instance, the accused, wanted by another state, is entitled to a hearing in a Minnesota court. He may “fight extradition” under a few rules. If they have arrested the wrong man in Minnesota and he can prove it, Minnesota would let him go free. If the paperwork from the requesting state is in improper legal form, Minnesota may release him. Otherwise, there are few defenses to avoid being sent back to the requesting state.
When it comes to countries, things get more complicated. The treaties between countries may be different. The country being asked to hold the accused may view such proceedings differently. In the case of Abu Hamza, the laws in Great Britain offer several layers of appeals and delays–Abu Hamza and his lawyers took full advantage of them all.
Why would Abu Hamza try to delay, knowing in the end he’d probably lose and have to go to the U.S. anyway?
Consider this: His delay of fourteen years means that many or all of the witnesses against him may have disappeared or died. Much of the evidence will have gone “stale”, may be lost, unavailable, or has also disappeared. The problem the prosecutor against him faces is that he must prove to the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the guilt of Abu Hamza–how will the prosecutor do it with faulty or missing evidence?
So, the best defense Abu Hamza had was to delay the extradition process as long as he could–which he did.
